EduBase MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and retry behavior. The description adds the '/check' capability but does not explain what this means (existence validation, permissions check, or return format), leaving behavioral gaps despite the hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

While brief (3 words), the description is inappropriately sized for the tool's context—too terse to explain the 'check' functionality or differentiate from 100+ siblings. It is front-loaded but under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the existence of an output schema, return values need not be described. However, the description leaves critical gaps: it does not clarify the dual 'get/check' behavior, distinguish from the plural list endpoint, or indicate what constitutes a valid 'organization identification string' beyond the schema's generic label.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage ('organization identification string'), the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no semantic clarification beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score for high-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the verb ('Get') and resource ('organization'), meeting basic clarity. However, the '/check' dual-purpose phrasing is ambiguous (validation vs. retrieval) and fails to distinguish from sibling 'edubase_get_organizations' (plural list vs. single entity retrieval).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edubase_get_organizations' or 'edubase_post_organization'. No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.